[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2 V7] qemu,qmp: add inject-nmi qmp command

From: Blue Swirl
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2 V7] qemu,qmp: add inject-nmi qmp command
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 23:07:31 +0300

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 04/08/2011 02:17 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Gleb Natapov<address@hidden>  wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 04:41:03PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>> On 04/07/2011 02:17 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 10:04:00PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Gleb Natapov<address@hidden>
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>> I'd prefer something more generic like these:
>>>>>> raise /address@hidden:l1int
>>>>>> lower /i44FX-pcihost/address@hidden/pinD
>>>>>> The clumsier syntax shouldn't be a problem, since this would be a
>>>>>> system developer tool.
>>>>>> Some kind of IRQ registration would be needed for this to work without
>>>>>> lots of changes.
>>>>> True. The ability to trigger any interrupt line is very useful for
>>>>> debugging. I often re-implement it during debug.
>>>> And it's a good thing to have, but exposing this as the only API to
>>>> do something as simple as generating a guest crash dump is not the
>>>> friendliest thing in the world to do to users.
>>> Well, this is not intended to be used by regular users directly and
>>> management can provide nicer interface for issuing NMI. But really,
>>> my point is that NMI actually generates guest core dump in such rare
>>> cases (only preconfigured Windows guests) that it doesn't warrant to
>>> name command as such. Management is in much better position to implement
>>> functionality with such name since it knows what type of guest it runs
>>> and can tell agent to configure guest accordingly.
>> Does the management need to know about each and every debugging
>> oriented interface? For example, "info regs",  "info mem", "info irq"
>> and tracepoints?
>> I think giving IRQs symbolic names could solve some other problems as
>> well. Maybe it should be possible to connect IRQs in a configuration
>> file and even with command line:
>> -device port90,irqid=p90out -device pckbd,irqid=kbdout -device
>> and,in=p90out,in=kbdout,out=sreset device system_reset,in=sreset
> You really want devices to have properties and for the device properties to
> be discoverable.  For instance:
> struct DeviceInfo
> {
>     .name = "and",
>     .properties = {
>          DEFINE_IRQ_IN(AndDevice, in[0]),
>          DEFINE_IRQ_IN(AndDevice, in[1]),
>          DEFINE_IRQ_OUT(AndDevice, out),
>     },
> };
> And then you can do:
> -device port90,id=port90 -device pckbd,id=pckbd \
> -device and,in[0]=port90.out,in[1]=pckbd.out,id=reset_and \
> -device system_reset.in=reset_and

Exactly. Given a NAND device, we could construct entire machines from
CLI or for example co-simulate SoCs with FPGAs using cells based on
the net lists.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]